Honey

false equivalence

agreed. insects are definitely not animals
- TIL lol
  i get there's a difference between exploitation and extermination, i'm just not seeing how one is "immoral" and the other isn't
  
  Roaches can transmit diseases, they're an actual biohazard. This doesn't change that they're living animals, but this does mean killing them when they're invading a home is legitimate defense. You may shun someone who goes tiger-hunting, but if a tiger comes into town, threateningly approaches people and get shot, you'd think this was necessary, although regrettable. You might want to investigate the cause for the tiger's unusual town venture, maybe blame deforestation, but the one who ends up shooting is likely not the one to blame. Same for roaches. Yes, they're animals; and certainly fascinating ones in some regards, but if they start proliferating in our homes, bringing bacteria and molds everywhere... At some point it's us or them.
  
  I'm personally an amoralist vegan so I can't really speak to that exactly, but it comes down to practicality and health. Veganism is usually about reducing harm as far as is practical (I.e., without risk to your own health), so most vegans make exceptions for medical needs, etc.
  
  reduction of harm is really the best point, and i can't think of an argument against it

You avoid an avoidable luxury, yet you do not avoid something unavoidable that's necessary. Curious.

exploitation is a fact of life. why is it unacceptable to exploit bees for their honey, but it's fine to kill billions of yeasts to make bread?
- Although yeast is technically living, it's more similar to bacteria than animals or other living creatures. It doesn't feel pain and isn't a sentient being - there is absolutely no reason not to consume yeast or foods made with yeast.
  
  Insects and other animals were not (and are still not in all cases) always considered sentient or capable of feeling pain. When it comes to other life forms, the fact is we have no idea how they experience the world. They are way too different from us. That doesn't automatically make them less alive or less valuable.
  
  And now we have evidence to suggest that we were wrong, thus there is a moral imperative to act based off this new information. There is no evidence that bacteria or similar organisms are capable of pain or suffering. If you want to just disregard all science and biology, that's your prerogative I suppose.
  
  I don't want to disregard science. I want to err by being preemptively more inclusive, not more cruel, when I don't have sufficient information.
  
  If you don't have any evidentiary basis for your inclusiveness, then that makes it completely arbitrary. Why not start worrying about potential cruelty to non-living things like air, or rocks as well?
  
  Because, as you say, they are non-living. What is and what isn't life is not arbitrary. It's a distinction based on science.
  
  Why does it matter? We can't understand the subjective experience of rocks any more than we can bacteria. Why should we rule out their capacity and not bacteria's? There's no more evidence that one has more of a conscious subjective experience than the other, living or not.
  By your logic, shouldn't we opt to be more inclusive of rocks if they could potentially have some sort of experience that we have no current understanding of?
  
  I suppose you could call me a lifeist. I expect similar attributes to be much more probable in things that already have something in common and are all related to each other. I find living things to be different enough from nonliving things to expect them to function differently. I expect pain in living things, because they are subjets of evolution and feeling pain is pretty useful.
  I don't think it's probable stones feel pain because it wouldn't benefit them in any way, and I agree with science that they are outside of what we call life.
  I do expect the existence of life not related to ours thst can be quite different from ours. (To describe what life is, let's use the commonly used attributes of evolution, propagatio and, self organization, although we could allow for some other definitions as well). If I came across a completely different life (and somehow cozld tell it was actuslly alive), I would definitely do my best not to harm it, even though there would be no way for me to tell whether it feels pain. There is, after all, the effect called convergence, and feeling pain is an advantage.
  Now I've written quite a bit of a response. It seems you're quite emotional about this topic. I have this vague feeling that my thoughts are somehow not your cup of tea, but I have no idea why. Would you mind sharing your own views?

Correct

Heh, nice try at having standards but since it is impossible to not harm anything then obviously possibly harming for pleasure is fine. Checkmate loser.

Now I am going to depict you as the crying wojack and me as the handsome wojack.

Because cockroaches are considered harmful to humans, some people just can't leave cockroaches alone and live correctly.

some people just can’t leave cockroaches alone and live correctly
some people can't be around peanuts. or bees for that matter
- And we have to respect the peanuts' right to be everywhere, right?
  Peanuts and bees usually don't invade your home. And if they did, some would argue it's acceptable to get rid of them. I'm pretty sure you can figure this out.
  
  some would argue it’s acceptable
  some would argue that eating honey is not immoral
  edit: also, funny how you bring up "invading homes" while agriculture inherently, necessarily is invading the homes of all sorts of animals. i guess "some would argue that's acceptable" also?
  
  some would argue that eating honey is not immoral
  Sure.
  The point of going vegetarian or vegan is to aim at a reduction of animal suffering and environmental footprint. Not to starve by choice. Agriculture is still better than more agriculture needed to consume meat.
  What's the problem exactly?
  
  fair enough.